linux-kernel - Re:[PATCH 1/2] fuse: replace fuse_queue_forget with fuse_force

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20240823115813.4138001-1-yangyun50@huawei.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2024 19:58:13 +0800
From: yangyun <yangyun50@...wei.com>
To: <miklos@...redi.hu>
CC: <josef@...icpanda.com>, <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <yangyun50@...wei.com>,
	<lixiaokeng@...wei.com>
Subject: Re:[PATCH 1/2] fuse: replace fuse_queue_forget with fuse_force_forget if error

On Thu, Aug 22, 2024 at 05:26:01PM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Jul 2024 at 12:06, yangyun <yangyun50@...wei.com> wrote:
> > Since forget is not necessarily synchronous (In my opinion, the pre-this patch use of
> > synchronous 'fuse_force_forget' is an error case and also not necessarily synchronous),
> > what about just changing the 'fuse_force_forget' to be asynchronous?
> 
> Even less impact would be to move the allocation inside
> fuse_force_forget (make it GFP_NOFAIL) and still use the
> fuse_queue_forget() function to send the forget as e.g. virtiofs
> handles them differently from regular requests.

fuse_force_forget uses the fuse_simple_request with args.force=true and it does not need allocation outside originally, so it is strange for what you said "move the allocation inside fuse_force_forge".

I think what you mean is moving the allocation inside fuse_queue_forget, not fuse_force_forget. This can make sense.

Thanks for your advice. I will update this patch.

> 
> Thanks,
> Miklos